Talk:Mycena purpureofusca/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 12:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this one later tonight. Not my usual area of work, but I'm trying to do my bit to help out the other WikiCup competitors in the final round with reviews. Miyagawa (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you! Looking forward to your review. Sasata (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, on to the review. I've had a read through already and I don't think there will be a great many points to raise.

Duplicate links: There was just the one, so I fixed it myself.

Taxonomy: Although it would end up with four linked words in a row (because of the double barrelled name), I'd link mycologist in the first line (only because I had to go look it up myself!).

Done. Sasata (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Description: More of a comment than anything - you mention that the edibility is unknown, yet the template on the right says inedible and you mention earlier in the first paragraph about the taste not being distinctive. I take it the template doesn't have an unknown option?

Actually it does ... fixed. Sasata (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Might want to link basidia on first mention.

Done (and trimmed some repetition). Sasata (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Last sentence of the first paragraph doesn't have an inline citation.

Added. Sasata (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's pretty much it. The prose is solid and the images all check out per licencing with some nice images included. Miyagawa (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking on the review Miyagawa. Sasata (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, I think this now meets the GA criteria (although it wasn't far off before!). Passing. Miyagawa (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]